Fox News Reports: On The Bush Family's Nazi ties!

Post Reply New Topic

There's a difference between freedom, and license. Freedom without any restraint is anarchy. All of our laws restrict some freedom to give us more security, in one way or another. That's what laws do. (Therefore making Ben Franklin's pithy aphorism nonsensical in actual fact.)

Only if you play really fast and loose with the traditional definition of an "empire."

I can respect your opinion and hope you respect mine. I just hope to continue to be able express my concerns freely.

There are many others who are not "conspiracy theorists" or anywhere near being an aspie that hold the same concerns for our country. They and I only want to help in the creation of the best society possible rather than always blindly accept what is given.

Whatever happened to that old oath?. to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," to the best of his ability.

There are other networks then Fox news (which has lower ratings then "big three" network newscasts).

Feel free to name some of the people effected by the Patriot Act. I remember that incident with the "National Security Letters" that was publicly acknowledged by the Attorney General (who said "more audits were necessary") in regards to them. They seemed more like a bureaucratic snafu (although perhaps one that should get some people fired) then a major national scandal, although I admit even some conservatives thought they were a bigger deal then I did (although not THAT big of a deal). I seem to remember Clinton having some issues with politically targeting people with the IRS? To be fair, it may have just been his subordinates.



If I remember I will look into it, but I think they the administration has pulled back from it's position on warrentless searches. I'm not sure about roving wiretaps, although I not sure why that's OK with mob and corporate crooks and not suspected Islamic terrorists.

I'm not sure what the reference to "hold you without legal representation" is to. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was a worry of further attacks (there were actually plots that were stopped) and many non-citizens who were visiting the U.S. were deported for immigration violations, and suspicions of terrorist ties. Of course, the detainees at Gitmo won't have lawyers (provided by the military) until preparation for their trials. Of course, to simply release them would be insane.

You are not now "assumed guilty" under the Patriot Act. Strictly speaking, the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a stock phrase anyway, and as "innocent" in the United States is "guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

In the civil trial of Sami Al-Arian, a Florida professor, was acquitted despite past ties to terrorism.

Oh, that library provision of the Patriot Act has never actually been used. Although I personally have no problem with it myself.



So the ADL, which is actually an organization with left-wing secular tendencies, declines to endorse a absurd claim that the Bush family is tied to the Nazis and this is further evidence of what exactly? Their allegiance to the neo-cons? And this for an organization that tends to attack Republicans as much, if not then Democrats?

BTW, if the Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, then why didn't FDR bother to make some hay about it? FDR, who was pretty bloody powerful at the time, could have painted the Republicans as Nazis (he was known to refer to some GOP isolationists as "fascists"). I guess Bush was just too powerful.



Everything I stated is straight based off ofs memos that Karl Roves sends to all of his covert agents.



The United States is shockingly unlike the Roman Empire.

The United States. How old? 231 years. What was it's height of power: It terms of percentage world GDP, shortly after the Second World War; It terms of international might probably after the fall of the Soviet Union ("the sole world Superpower"). What type of government does it have: federal constitutional democracy. Who is it headed by: A President, with specific and limited powers assigned by Constitution. How many coups/violent changes of power have their been: 0/4 Percentage of Population that Immigrated Into It Voluntarily: Almost All of It%

The Roman Empire. How old? 503 years for United and Western Empire. 1,058 for Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. When at the height of it's power: Roman Empire: Antonine Dynasty (96-180), Byzantine Empire: In terms of territory, under Justinian I (527-565), What type of government: In both cases an Empire, with varying cases of absolutism, Who is in headed by: An emperor in both cases, with no limit to powers assigned by anyone except by force of arms. How many coups/violent changes of power: Most of Roman Emperors died violent deaths. Percentage of Population that Immigrated Voluntarily into Empire: Most were Annexed, although later as the empire was in decline it was forced to accept migrants who were partially responsible for destroying it%



It's true we aren't called an empire, indeed France wasn't officially called an empire (with a couple of occasions), but people still spoke of "The French Empire" referring to France's colonies. This was, of course, because France had huge amounts of land outside of France in it's possessions. Indeed, Britain, who's Monarch is called a "King" or "Queen," proudly boasted of it's Empire despite the fact it technically wasn't an empire at all.

The United States once held The Philippines as a territory but they were granted independence (and yes I know, and thanks for the info, that we supported their tin pot dictators). We still hold Puerto Rico, and the entire American west.

Of course if you are talking economically, then I guess then Japan, and Taiwan are empires too. We also didn't invade Iraq to capture it's resources, but since facts are less importing then lies repeated endlessly...



It makes him more human, in my opinion.



A better question would be: "What good does it do to fight terrorism if all we are going to do is take civil liberties away in the process? This way you acknowledge that there is more to the opposing argument then wanting to suppress everyone's civil liberties (who if that is want they had been wanting to do we likely would not be having this debate).

The answer to the latter question is it should not be a question of either or. It is said that you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, and you cannot yell and scream inside a private business to provoke a riot (actually the ACLU says you have the right to do the latter). I support the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. President Bush when told about hateful comments about him specifically said that everyone has a right to have an express their opinion. The question is what is constitutionally allowable and what is not. Does that constitution allow the government to check records in the (primarily tax funded) libraries? Isn't there a legal question there? I realize the Feds haven't even used that provision of the Patriot Act, but I'm just saying.



Is this intended as an ironic statement? Question: Who are the "guns and bombs" aimed at? Doesn't that matter? Are they aimed at the parliment of Iraq? Are they aimed at the average Iraqi citizenry going about his daily life?

No it isn't. It's aimed at the people killing[i] the average Iraqi citizenry going about his daily life. We are so much [i]spreading democracy with guns and bombs but protecting what flawed democracy, what somewhat stable government is still in place.



I'm sure that won't be an issue.

99% of the people killed in Iraq have been everyday citizens such as you and me going about there daily lives.

All they have done is create more terrorists out of the survivors whose wives, husbands, brothers, aunts, mothers, friends and children completely innocent have been killed and blown to bits. Those who have survived now live in social chaos with no social structure, no access to food and water, can no longer go to their jobs and support themselves or whomever is left.

What if a country that hates what Bush has done began invading here with tanks running through your hometown street and gunfire and bombs and just blew up everyone you knew and loved. That's exactly what they are experiencing over there. And most are innocent cilivians.

Many there that originally supported us with the take down of Saddam have since changed their attitude when faced with daily voilence, instability and chaos. Why do you think rebuilding has become such an issue? Because now we're faced with the fact that we cannot leave the country in such disarray.

If you

Last edited by newaspie on 18 Apr 2007, 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you check out the death records recorded in Iraq, it pretty much reads like this:

female, child, 3

female, student, 18

male, student, 21

female, mother and wife, 26

child, male, 5

child, male 6

etc., etc., etc.

very, very few had any political connections at all and a very large number are young children.

so if we were at our height of power after WWII, then were are obviously going down from there.

Currently our poverty levels and the levels of community and familial breakdown are higher than any other first world country.

And we have by far more people in prison than any other industrialized nation.

Don't you think that says something about the state of our country?

You and I both agree that vast majority of those killed in Iraq are civilians.



OK, first, I think if this debate is to continue we need to clarify our positions. I believe the facts are pretty clear that it is the insurgent groups, as well as sectarian extremists, that are targeting civilians, not the U.S. military.

As for the latter point, I've seen no evidence that such a claim (that "those who have survive (have) no social structure, no access to food, and water, ect...) is in fact correct. Sanctions have been dropped against Iraq so there is no longer major issues with shortages of food, water, and medicine (additionally you no longer have a dictator hoarding them in warehouses).



First off, this is not what happened. U.S. forces didn't move in and randomly machine gun and throw grenades at civilians. If this was the case, then there would be the biggest international scandal in the Iraq occupation would not be the abu-Graib prison affair.

Second, I have always said that if the United States was taken over by a tyrant like Saddam I would want an international intervention.



Rebuilding has became an issue because extremists from both inside and outside the country, with different agendas, have a shared interest in making sure that 1. The United States is forced out of the region. 2. a large state in the heart of the Middle East is not allowed to became a stable democracy.



I know this, and take this very much into consideration in regards to making a position on Iraq. I believe that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq there will be a bloodbath in which many more innocent people will DIE.

Remember, almost all the civilians are killed by terrorist groups.



I was using percentage of world GDP. During the Second World War, the rest of the World became poorer and the U.S. became richer (largely due to the continental U.S. was with one small exception untouched by the war, and during the much unused economic potential was used).

U.S. growth continued to soar until the Vietnam war, when a mix of a lengthy conflict and poor economic policies caught up with the country. During the 1980s, economic policies were reversed, and the United States seen, with brief interruptions, more then two decades of economic growth.



In regards to poverty, it is a misleading statistic.



(source)

Some other things are worth taking into accounts. People's incomes tend to vary over the course of a lifetime, as generally most people who are classified as in "poverty" do not remain so. Additionally, prices for many items that use to be more expensive to produce have dropped to make it easier to purchase, yet the way the poverty rate is calculated has not changed. It is perhaps noteworthy that it is the United States, and not Europe or Asia that people can more reasonably dream of owning their own home.



The New York Times often has headlines along the lines of "More In Prison, Yet Crime Rate Drops." They fail to see the connection at how jailing criminals connects to the lowering of the crime rate.

Did you know the United States is the only country to have the death penalty in the industrialized world? Well...except Japan. And they hang people there. They let the guilty sit on death row and just wait without giving them any date of execution so they are constantly in fear of impending death.

The U.S. population is somewhat over 300 million. The U.S. prison population is from my Google search somewhat over 2 million.

The People's Republic of China, an at a minimum authoritarian state, does not release on the total of those who are in prison. The PRC has a population of over 1 billion people. According to this story:



(source)

Of course, it's possible that the actual total is higher then this. From this information I would guess that the prison/labor camp population of China is higher then that of the United States, and probably much higher.

In all documentaries and reporting I've seen interviewing actually Iraqi's who've lost love ones or doctors/clincians working in "hospitals" to help the wounded, state it's the bombs dropped by us that cause the most devastation and civilian casualties. One poor grandmother was screaming because her entire family, children and grandchildren were all gone, not mention her village and friends. She was the only one left. They rest were killed by bombs. She was standing in rubble, the entire community devastated, pieces of bodies everywhere screaming "why? america, why have you done this to us? why?!?!' It was horrible. There are endless accounts like this, and I can hardly bare to think of it, it gets me so upset.

There were some that spoke of terrorists, but most complained of the US, their bombs and indiscrimate shooting. Many spoke of US soldiors busting into their houses violently when "clearing" areas with many getting shot, including their children. Why shoot children???! !?!?! And most were stating they were behind us until...

The choas over there really is prime for other groups to form and cause more probs, yes i agree there are many insurgents, terrorists, and I'm sure also warlords forming, as happens in areas in chaos. As I said, the chaos we've created creates the perfect breeding ground -they were not running around killing civilians until we created the chaotic environment to make it possible. When we invaded Afganastan, the terrorist groups and insurgents actually got stronger and had more members because of the same issues. And the country is full of warlords now battling over turf for drug money.

I'm not saying we're over there just always haphazardly and indiscrimately killing. I know they have their missions and purpose..

When it comes down to it, war is war. The pictures from the Vietnam era upset many because of the type of things done, but the truth is, this is always how war is. They're usually just much better at keeping it from the public eye. Hence this time around the government's need for control over the media: ie. embedded reporters going mostly on daily briefings coming from the Pentagon, rather than from the ground.

They target one building to bomb with maybe one or two supposed terrorists in it and obliviate an entire block of civilians in the process. Many times the person(s) they were after wasn't where they thought and their miss rate is very, very high, even with the so-called "smart bombs" which they're learning now are not on target much more than any others previously used. Though I'm sure they like to keep that one out of the news at much as possible considering they spent mucho more money of our tax dollars on them because of companys' claims of being more precise and on target. They were marketed with the idea of reduction in civilian casualties, but this theory has proved false as there are as many as ever.

If we wanted to overtake Saddam, don't you think we could have captured him in a different way other than "shock and awe"? Did we need to blow up most of the city of Bagdad to make our point to one man and his 2 sons??

The US made an agreement with historians, scholars, and other prominant Iraqi's to protect certain areas/places to help preserve Iraqi treasures and culture: ie. their national museums and such I forget them all on the list: there were 10). The last item on the list was the oilfields. We promised to adhere to this and have army protection around these areas but instead obliterated every place on the list EXCEPT the oilfields. hmmm Remember those pictures on the news with the Iraqi national museum in shambles and looting everywhere? We promised them we would protect these areas, and artifacts that had for 100s and in some cases 1000s of years have been destroyed or stolen.

Yes, I know regarding capital punishment. I personally feel our country spends way too much time and tax dollars treating many social issues as criminal ones. There are much better, more effective and inexpensive ways to handle many of these issues, but I suppose that's another topic...

My problem with the war and war in general is that I don't think it is ever the only or best solution, at least not in the manner that it is usually carried out it. You take out one man and destroy thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of lives in the process. If we had a dictator like Saddam here, I would want him taken out of power, but not in the manner that shock and awe was carried out..

Hey-maybe we don't completely agree, but I do enjoy debating.

Last edited by newaspie on 19 Apr 2007, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would agree that many of the country's efforts to battle poverty have and will continue to fail as they DON'T address all issues and never seem to take into account true cause and effect. Most are bandaid solutions. You cannot truly solve a problem without addresses the underlying causes and conditions for such, and improving THOSE areas (ie: familial and community breakdown, street culture, creating support systems and access to information, health care, and education, etc.). No one will ever solve poverty with weekly checks and a few bags of free groceries, cuz once the money's out and the food's been eaten, they are back to square one.

As far as how the poverty level is determined, I know for myself I've had very rough times where I was bringing in very little and could hardly support myself (and I'm a spendthrift and can survive on very little and also a workhorse) and was still considered well above the poverty line they use to determine these facts/figures and if you need help. I've known many more in the same situation: working hard, trying to make it, but borderline falling apart/losing everything but still above poverty level. The only way I would have ended up under the dollar amount would have been to lower my standards and income purposefully. So back to bandaid solutions as many people do this, quit trying as hard, and take advantage because they receive more help and aid than if they were actually trying and struggling to keep food on the table. I've met many who don't see the point of trying.

Thanks for your reply. You have been a good sport.

"Shock and Awe" was never completely initiated, and those bombings you saw were against government buildings in the government district in the initial phase of the war. We didn't carpet bomb the city. Download Google Earth and type in "Bagdad."

Much of the media's coverage of the war has been atrocious. Look, the Sunni population was much opposed invasion to the from the start since they were given a more privileged position compared to the Shi'a and Kurds. In all honestly, if you actually see to find out who is registering most of the civilian complaints it is the Sunni population, and almost of these complaints are simply anecdotal.

I am not trying to defend war crimes. When some soldier murders civilians I believe they should be prosecuted to the maximum extend possible, including the use of the death penalty, but it is important that the other side uses propaganda as well as the Western media has a habit of falling for it.



Just the other day car bombs was detonated in Baghdad that killed more then 150 innocent civilians. The US isn't doing this!



What network was this on, what documentary? I am very sorry for whatever happened. It is certainly possible that they were killed do to collateral damage, but U.S soldiers do not target civilians intentional as a policy. There has been terrible sectarian warfare in Iraq, some of it set off by terrorists bombing Shi'a or Sunni holy sites. The Sunni's have viewed the U.S. as being on the sides of the Shi'a and the Kurds, although this may be changing somewhat since if the U.S. leaves they may be little that prevents a genocidal campaign from being initiated against them.



I don't like civilian causalities either.



I'm sorry, but it is not the policy of The United States to indiscriminately shoot at civilians. I'm not saying civilians don't happen. I don't saying there are not rogues (although they were more common in Vietnam and even more so in Korea and World War II), but it isn't a policy.



Was this anecdotal? Who were the people making the charges? Again, I categorically reject the idea that the U.S. is simply gunning down innocent people.



I am not sure if I am correct if my interpretation of your beliefs but my guess from this statement (in regards to both Iraq and Afghanistan) is that: Before it was No Terrorists Killing Civilians, Then We Invade and Now we have Chaos With Terrorists and Us Killing Civilians. I'm not sure whether you think we should leave.

I disagree with each part of this.

Before, in both cases context must be noted (even in you oppose the initially invasion, which I think one can reasonably do). In Aghanistan, they had an horrific despotic regime and they had terrorist training camps within their country (including many Osama Bin Laden's camps as well as the man himself). Iraq had a somewhat less despotic regime, and they sponsored terrorist attacks against Israel as well as having a major terrorist training camp and hosting certain international terrorists.

Now, in the current I would dispute that things in Afganistan are so bad now that they would appear to be worse then before the invasion itself. Regardless of terrorist attacks (which occur less frequently then Iraq) and a somewhat unstable decentralized government, the country is better off to not be led by the sadistic Taliban and not to be hosting the al-Qaida organization.

Oh, and while drug money is an issue (the Taliban only "banned" it), it is not something that is currently causing major destabilization of the Afghan government.

I disagree with your interpretation of the development of the Iraqi insurgency (parts of which came from, are encouraged from out of country. There are many segments of the insurgency, but I would be cautious about using the word "warlord" because that would imply something like the leader of a conventional state (like a Chinese warlord). In Iraq we are dealing with something much more complicated. To be honest perhaps this specific rebuttal would probably be better served as a specific post in itself.



It was not so much pictures of the war in Vietnam, but the analysis of those pictures that had the most effect. Even so popular support for the war tended to move back and forth, more so then in the current Iraq conflict. There were no massive protests in the United States at congress passed Richard Nixon's supported bill to end the draft. Indeed, had Richard Nixon not resigned in disgrace the outcome of the war may have been different since the Democrats would not have gained veto-proof majorities.



The Pentagon has not imposed extra restrictions on media journalists who want to embed. The fact is journalists, and editors have lost interest and pulled almost every one of the embeds because their there is no ideological interest to cover soldiers on the ground.



That depends on the size of the bomb, and the size of the block.



It's true that apparently (very unfortunately) our intelligence on Saddam was wrong (if I remember right Saddam may have had a clue as to who the spy was) and we bombed his location after he left, although we did destroy his location but unfortunately not with him their (and hence with any innocents he happened to be there, as well as any Saddam loyalists who were still hanging around). The JDM GPS guidance system, which the air force has on much of it's bombs, has a estimated 95% success rate. Future systems will only get better.



Civilians causilities caused by air craft has dropped dramatically since Vietnam, and by a massive number since the Second World War. The military is seeking designed from multiple contractors for these GPS systems, if the companies fail to deliver they could lose their contract to another company (this has happened in the past).



Let me address another point here. In the beginning of the war we attempted to kill him with a surgical strike. This strike failed because apparently (I suppose) our source had been compromised, or maybe we just got unlucky. Obviously, if the U.S. had tried to kill Saddam with such out of the blue there might be some effects (ignoring internal Iraqi intelligence documents, remember that Saddam tried to have former President George H.W. Bush assassinated), I wonder if perhaps this cassus belli against Iraq itself might cause a retaliation?

Another option I suppose would be some type of commando raid like the absurd one that opens the movie Air Force One. If you remember in that movie President Harrison Ford declares no tolerance for terrorism after the raid. During the raid, a transport aircraft drops commandos onto the roof of some a Soviet Republic's Presidential palace, kill the guards on the roof, the guards inside, grab the evil thug President, and spirit him away on a wait helicopter.

Now you might say, why didn't we do that to Saddam? Couldn't we have then placed him before an international tribunal?

First, no we couldn't have. Because 1. The cities in Iraq, especially the capital of Baghdad, are surrounded by anti-aircraft guns, and they would have shot down a slow transport plane just like they tried to shoot down American and British aircraft flying to enforce no-fly zones. 2. Saddam stayed in a different palace every night. Late in his despotic leadership he sometimes stayed at more then one palace in one evening. U.S. intelligence, crippled by Senator Church's witchunt's against the CIA in the 1970s simply is not tracking Saddam Hussein so carefully, let alone, say, assassinating him. Also, I will add that the security around Saddam Hussein is tight. The fact we (apparently) got a source that close to Saddam is astonishing and lucky it itself. The fact he very likely wound up dead is most unfortunate.

Now suppose Saddam is killed or kidnapped or something like that, what next? Oh, well then his dastardly sons are in charge...well get rid of them (which is absurd since the CIA is nothing like it used to be but let's pretend) OK what next...We get condemned by the U.N for violating Iraq's sovereignty that what. A weak leader (a dictator) might be able to take over Iraq but a civil war will probably break out, likely a sectarian one in which the Sunni's will be targeted since they are, of course, the minority and associated with Saddam. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et cetera send fighters to support the Sunni's while Iran, just like it is doing attempts to set up bring down whatever government is in place until they can get in a puppet government.



Let me tell you the plane honest truth: The oil is more important the the history museum (and the looting at the history museum was exaggerated by the media). The oil is easily Iraq's most valuable resource (can anyway name any other resource that Iraq has?). If they were burned Iraq's reconstruction would be set back. Rich westerners have plenty of time to tour museums in their leisure time, but if Iraq doesn't have an oil industry then Iraq is much poorer and Iraqis have less time to go to museums. Make Iraqis richer and they, like Europeans, will be able, if necessary, to buy pieces from abroad. As it happens the vast majority of their pieces survived.



I don't think it's necessary to repeat points I have said before. It is worth noting I think that previous conflicts have been far crueler then the Iraqi one to civilians, such as the Second World War and the Korean War, but I (at least) think they were justified.



I appreciate that very much.. You have another post but this one is long so I think I will call this one I night.